IntroductionThis
week we shall begin a discussion of some of the laws of dairy and meat.We will begin with a discussion of Nat Bar Nat, the laws regarding Pareve
items cooked in a meat or dairy pot.

Talmudic
Background - Disagreement between Rav and ShmuelThe
Gemara (Chullin 111b) records a dispute between Rav and Shmuel regarding the
following case: Hot fish was placed on a meat plate (a plate that had hot meat
placed on it, thereby causing “meat taste particles” to be absorbed into the
plate).These Amoraim debate whether it is permissible to subsequently eat the
fish with dairy.Rav rules that it is forbidden to do so, but Shmuel rules that it is
permissible.
Rav believes that it is forbidden because the fish absorbed a meat taste.Shmuel believes it is permissible because the fish is two steps removed
from the meat; first the meat is absorbed in the plate and then the meat in the
plate is transferred to the fish.The connection between the fish and the meat is too remote to create a
prohibited mixture of meat and dairy if dairy is subsequently introduced into
this fish.This situation is referred to by the Talmud as Nat Bar Nat, a second
generation transfer of taste particles.Nat Bar Nat is an acronym that stands for Notein Taam Bar Notein Taam,
which literally means “the transfer of taste the son of the transfer of
taste.”After citing a number of incidents that support the view of Shmuel, the
Gemara concludes that the Halacha follows the view of Shmuel (for an analysis of
the reasoning of this rule, see TosafotZevachim 96a s.v. Veim).
Incidentally, we should note that the Taz (Yoreh Deah 95:3) explains why this
case does not violate the rule that one is forbidden to eat fish and meat mixed
together.He states that the prohibition of eating a mixture of meat and fish
applies only to eating actual meat and fish together.Meat “taste particles” that a pot or plate emits into fish does not
render it as forbidden food and fish ”taste particles” emitted into meat do
not render the meat as forbidden.Indeed, this is why we may eat fish with clean meat utensils.Similarly, this is why it is sufficient to simply thoroughly wash a
utensil that was used even with hot fish and subsequently use that utensil with
meat.

Rishonim - 3 OpinionsRishonim
debate the scope of the applicability of the rule of Nat Bar Nat.The Rivan (cited in Tosafot Chulin 111b s.v. Hilchata) cites the opinion
of his great father-in-law, Rashi, who limits the applicability of the Nat Bar
Nat leniency.He relates that Rashi
believed that only fish placed on a meat plate is considered Nat Bar Nat,
since only a small amount of meat taste is absorbed into the fish.However, if fish is cooked in a meat pot, then the fish is not
Pareve even according to Shmuel.This
is because the fish has absorbed a great deal of "meat taste" from the
meat pot.Rivan relates that once
someone asked Rashi if an egg that was cooked in a dairy pot can be cooked with
meat, and Rashi replied in the negative.
Tosafot, however, notes that a different impression is gleaned from Rashi’s
(s.v. Nat Bar Nat) commentary to the Gemara Chulin 111b.Rashi explains that the fish attains the status of being
"meaty" only if it is cooked with actual meat.Rashi clearly implies that if the fish is only cooked in a meat pot, then
the fish remains Pareve.Indeed,
Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, and his great-grandson, the Ri, both believe
that the Nat Bar Nat rule applies even in a case of cooking, so that even if the
Pareve item was cooked in a meat or dairy pot, the cooked item remains Pareve
(see Haghaot Ashri, Chulin 8:29).
The Rosh (Chulin 8:30) cites the Sefer HaTruma who adopts a middle position.He believes that a Pareve item roasted in a meat or dairy pot is
no longer Pareve.However, if the
Pareve item is cooked in a meat or dairy pot it is still considered
Pareve.The cooking case is
different because the Pareve is three steps removed from the meat.First, the meat was absorbed into the pot, subsequently the taste of the
meat is imparted to the water the Pareve item is being cooked in, and only then
to the Pareve item.Indeed, Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 76a s.v. Bat Yoma) asserts (and
the Shach Y.D. 94:15 rules in accordance with this assertion) that even Rashi
agrees that a Pareve item cooked in a meat or dairy pot remains Pareve if it is
three steps removed from either meat or milk.

Shulchan
AruchRav
Yosef Karo, in his Beit Yosef (chapter 95 s.v. Dagim) cites many Rishonim
(including Rashba, Ran, Ravya) who subscribe to the most lenient opinion, that
Pareve food cooked or even roasted in a meat or dairy pot is still considered
Pareve.Indeed, in the Shulchan
Aruch (Yoreh Deah 95:2), Rav Karo rules according to the most lenient opinion
that the Nat Bar Nat leniency applies even to Pareve food roasted in a meat or
dairy pot.The Rama thereupon notes
that the Ashkenazic practice is to initially (Lechatchila) be concerned with the
strict opinion.That means, for
instance, that a Pareve item cooked (or roasted) in a meat pot should not be
eaten with dairy foods.If,
however, the Pareve food happened to have been mixed with dairy food (i.e.
Bidieved), the Rama writes that the Ashkenazi practice is to follow the lenient
view.
It seems to me that it is possible that the Rama is entirely consistent with
Rashi’s opinions about this matter.It
seems possible that Rashi essentially believes that a Pareve item cooked in a
meat or milk pot remains Pareve.This
position is reflected in Rashi’s commentary on Gemara Chullin.However, Rashi’s oral ruling may stem from a Minhag that
Rashi developed to be strict about this matter, in order to avoid confusion.Since it is easy to confuse a case of a Pareve item cooked in a meat pot
with a case of a meat item cooked in a meat pot, Rashi sought to avoid problems
by forbidding one to initially mix Pareve items cooked in a meat pot with milk
(and vice versa).However, once a
mistake has been made perhaps Rashi would concede that the mixture is not
forbidden to consume since the essential Halacha regards items cooked in a meat
or milk pot as Pareve.
The Rama seems to permit (Bidieved) even Pareve food, roasted in a meat pot and
subsequently mixed with dairy, to be eaten.The Shach (95:4), however, cites the opinion of the Maharshal that if a
Pareve item was roasted in a meat utensil and then mixed with dairy, it
cannot be eaten.This opinion
follows the aforementioned opinion of the Sefer HaTruma.However, the Aruch HaShulchan (95:12) and Chochmat Adam
(48:1) adopt the ruling of Rama as normative, even though the Shach is regarded
as extraordinarily authoritative Perhaps they rule in accordance with the Rama's
opinion since it is based on the accepted practice of Ashkenazic Jewry.Rav Feivel Cohen (Badei Hashulchan 95:25) rules that one who wishes to
rely on the lenient opinion on this matter has a right to do so, but he commends
one accommodates the strict opinion.
The Sephardic practice regarding this issue is far more lenient than the
Ashkenazic practice.In fact, Rav
Ovadia Yosef (see Yalkut Yosef p. 844 in the 5760 edition) and the current Chief
Rabbi of the State of Israel, Rav Shlomo Amar (Teshuvot Shamah Shlomo 2:Y.D. 4
and 6), permit Sephardim to cook a Pareve item in a meat pot even if one intends
to eat the Pareve item with milk and even if the meat pot had been used for meat
within the previous twenty four hours (or vice versa regarding cooking a Pareve
item in a milk pot for use with meat).Rav
Shalom Messas (Teshuvot Shemesh U’Magen 1:8, 2:42-43, and 3:1), though, rulesthat even according to Rav Yosef Karo, one may not cook a Pareve item in
a meat pot that has been used within twenty four hours if one intends to eat the
Pareve item with milk.He believes
that the Shulchan Aruch differs with the Rama only regarding a Pareve item that
was cooked in a meat pot with the intention of using it with only meat or
Pareve, that one may later decide to eat the Pareve item with milk.

Waiting
Between Meat and Dairy in the Case of Nat Bar NatRama
(89:3) rules that one is not required to wait (six/three hours) after consuming
Pareve food cooked in a meat pot.This
is permitted because (see Taz 89:1 and Igrot Moshe Y.D 2:26) the reason we wait
between meat and dairy is that either some meat remains in one’s teeth or that
the taste of meat remains in one’s mouth after eating meat.Obviously, these two reasons do not apply to Pareve items cooked in a
meat pot, and accordingly, there is no need to wait six or three hours before
consuming dairy foods.
The Darkei Teshuva (99:43) cites a responsum of Rav Shlomo Kluger where he
permits one to eat Pareve items cooked in a dairy pot within six/three hours
after consuming meat.Rav Kluger
notes that common practice is to be lenient regarding this question.

Eino
Ben Yomo - Pot Not Used for Twenty Four HoursRama
notes that Ashkenazic practice is to treat a Pareve item cooked in a meat or
dairy pot that was unused during the previous twenty four hours (Eino Ben Yomo),
as Pareve.For instance, if one
cooked potato in a meat pot that had not been used in the previous twenty four
hours, one may eat the potato with sour cream.The reason for this is that the Halacha (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. Chapter 103)
rules (see Avodah Zarah, 75b) that “taste particles” that are absorbed in a
utensil turn rancid after remaining in the pot for more than twenty four hours.Hence, the pot will subsequently emit rancid “taste particles” from
the food it had previously absorbed (Notein Taam Lifgam).
If the taste emitted is bad, it does not render the food it enters as forbidden.In our example, the meat taste particles expelled into the potato were
rancid and hence do not render the potato as "meaty,” even according to
the strict opinion.
The Chochmat Adam (48:2) notes, however, that one should not initially cook a
Pareve item in a meat or dairy pot, even if it has not been used in the past
twenty four hours, even if one plans to eat with a food type opposite to the
type of the pot it was cooked in.The
Biur HaGra (Y.D. 95:10), however, is lenient about this matter.Rav Feivel Cohen (Badei Hashulchan 95:33 and Bi’urim ad. loc. s.v. Im)
and Rav Mordechai Willig (1981 SOY Guide to Kashrut, p.69) rule in accordance
with the Chochmat Adam.Indeed, common practice does appear to accord with the
strict opinion on this matter.The
Chochmat Adam, though, is lenient in case of great need.Rav Feivel Cohen (Badei Hashulchan Tziyunim 95:70) cites this
point as normative Halacha.It
seems, however, that if a Pareve item was cooked in an Eino Ben Yomo meat pot
with the intention of eating it with meat, that one may later decide to eat the
Pareve item with milk.Thus, for example, if one cooked noodles in an Eino Ben Yomo
meat pot with the intention of eating it at a meat meal, one may eat the
leftover noodles the next day with cottage cheese.

ConclusionWe
have presented the basic rules of Nat Bar Nat. However, since there are many
more details and exceptions to these rules, one should consult his Rabbi if he
is confronted with a situation of Nat Bar Nat.Next week, Im Yirtzeh Hashem and Bli Neder, we shall discuss the issue of
Davar Charif.

PostscriptAs a student I wondered whether the
“taste particles” (Bliot) that the Gemara and the Poskim refer to, are
physical entities or metaphysical entities.I posed the question to two Gedolim.Rav Aharon Soloveitchik told me that Bliot are a physical entity whereas
Rav J. David Bleich told me that he thought that they were a metaphysical
entity.